1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1C, Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: 202-223-4975 Fax: 202-223-4979
Email: coha@coha.org Website: www.coha.org
Council On Hemispheric Affairs
Monitoring Political, Economic and Diplomatic Issues Affecting the Western Hemisphere
Memorandum to the Press 04.91
Word Count: 1900
Monday, 6 December 2004
Weekend Release
Brazil’s Peacekeeping Mission in Haiti: Doing God’s or Washington’s Work?
• On November 29, the United Nations’ Security Council announced that the Brazilian-led MINUSTAH peacekeeping force will
be staying in Haiti until June 2006.
• Brazil’s relationship with MINUSTAH is controversial, as many Brazilians feel that it would be better for President
Lula da Silva to focus his attention and Brazil’s resources within his own economically-troubled country, while many
inside as well as abroad view the peacekeeping force as a mechanism that has aided the White House and the UN in using
extra-constitutional means to rid itself of deposed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
• Lula da Silva has had a mercurial relationship with the U.S., sometimes openly aiding its causes, while on other
occasions openly thwarting them.
• In Haiti, many believe that Brazil has sold its soul to Washington to facilitate gaining a permanent seat on the UN
Security Council.
Less than a week after the de facto February 29 coup d’état that overthrew President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the
Brazilian government let it be known that it would send 1,100 troops to lead and provide the core units for MINUSTAH,
the UN’s international peacekeeping force in Haiti. Brazilian troops arrived and assumed command of the force in June,
relieving a U.S.-led multilateral force of 2,500 already in the country. On November 29, the UN Security Council
announced that the MINUSTAH forces would extend their stay in Haiti until June 2006, with Brazil continuing to lead the
force. Brazil’s stated mission for its presence in Haiti is to support the decisions of the UN Security Council and aid
the Haitian people. “It is natural for Brazil to be in Haiti,” said a source within the Brazilian embassy. “There was no
alternative to involvement [there].” However, a number of independent observers have been quick to claim that Lula da
Silva’s reasons for his country’s presence are more self-centered than just maintaining regional peace or helping the
Haitians, and more accurately stem from Brazil’s desire to advance its position on the world stage, a project for which
U.S. goodwill is essential.
Domestic Dissent
In spite of its seemingly innocuous role as that of “peacekeeper,” the MINUSTAH force has been criticized on a number of
grounds. Some isolationist Brazilians feel that it is wrong for Lula to focus so much attention and resources on a
foreign country when there are serious domestic problems which need to be addressed. Brazil has one of the worst income
distributions in the world, with one fourth of the country’s population living on earnings of less than two dollars a
day. The gang wars and drug cartels in the urban slums known as favelas are barely containable and are only met with
under-equipped and under-trained local police forces unable to deal with a problem of enormous magnitude. As a result,
they often lapse into widespread human rights abuses against the poor or enter into complicity with the criminals they
are supposed to oppose. Given the enormity of the problems facing their country, many Brazilians are somewhat resentful
of the fact that Lula seems to have grown bored with helping his own people with their multiple problems, and moved
farther afield.
As Haiti’s present, deeply flawed government was not elected, but rather resulted from the overthrow of
democratically-elected President Aristide at the behest of U.S. authorities, many Brazilians feel that, by authorizing a
peacekeeping force to Haiti, the UN is implicitly condoning an illegitimate government that installed a thoroughly
incompetent UN official, interim Prime Minister Gerard Latortue, whose ineptitude is to the demonstrable detriment of
the Haitian people. Fundamentally, the case against Lula is that the Brazilian army is not in Haiti simply to support a
peaceful resolution, but rather to help inculcate a post-Aristide society where Aristide’s Lavalas political party could
be disqualified from participating in next year’s presidential balloting. The rationale behind this is that if Lavalas
is allowed to run, it will almost certainly win by a landslide victory, something the U.S. is entirely against.
In fact, human rights and Haitian interest groups repeatedly have accused MINUSTAH for idly standing by as peaceful
pro-Aristide demonstrators are shot by Haitian police (which also includes many members of the corrupt, disbanded
Haitian military), or worse, by the intercession of MINUSTAH forces themselves on the side of the police. Highly
regarded human rights attorney Brian Concannon has found that, "They're [the UN force] much more than negligently
letting these things happen. They are playing an active role." Critics also have alleged that UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan has played a prejudicial role against Aristide’s Lavalas party and collaborated in legitimizing U.S. Secretary of
State Colin Powell’s scheme for forcing Aristide to flee to exile. Due to this and other factors, many Latin Americans
view the MINSUTAH force in Haiti as a function of Annan’s efforts to win Washington’s goodwill, by echoing Powell’s
contention that Aristide fled Haiti because he could not win over the opposition, when, in fact, it was the opposition’s
fundamental policy not to speak to Aristide under any circumstances. Lula’s critics now charge that Brazil is aspiring
to become another Western Hemisphere superpower. He has been inundated with critical petitions and manifestos from his
own Workers Party, one of which declared that, by sending troops to Haiti, Brazil was "reinforce[ing] the intention of
George W. Bush's administration to impose an unlimited hegemony.”
Lula and Washington at Odds
Given the growing claims that Lula is in the United States pocket on some issues, his relationship with that country
remains surprisingly touchy. In April of this year, Brazil became the first developing country to register and win a
complaint against a first world nation in the World Trade Organization. It did this by insisting and then proving that
U.S. subsidies to cotton farmers unfairly gave an advantage to U.S. farmers against cotton producers in the rest of the
hemisphere. A September 2003 free-trade summit in Cancún, Mexico, collapsed when a coalition of developing nations, led
by Lula, protested against unfair trade restrictions on the part of industrialized nations, an action that sharply
nettled Washington. Also grating to a Bush administration keenly aware of it friends and enemies, was its bitterness
over Brazil’s lack of sympathy when it came to the war in Iraq, with some Brazilian personalities even expressing their
feelings that the attacks of September 11 could be considered a justified response to an abrasive and aggressive U.S.
foreign policy. Upon announcing that Brazil would stay in Haiti until the elections, Lula came forth with what some
considered a lame defense of his actions, stating, "If we weren't there (in Haiti), U.S. troops would be doing what we
would never do,” suggesting that, if Brazil had not taken over the peacekeeping role in Haiti, the U.S. would be
pursuing a militarized nation-building strategy similar to the one being pursued in Iraq. Lula previously had subtly
criticized the U.S. when he described an August charity soccer match between Brazil and Haiti as, “a gesture meant to
show the world that not everything should be done with cannons, machine guns or weapons of mass destruction. Sometimes a
gesture of love is worth much more than certain wars we have been following through the world media."
A Change of Heart?
However, in spite of such bilateral conflicts, the U.S. and Brazil at times seem to have an effective working
relationship. The U.S. failed to condemn Brazil after the latter refused to let weapons inspectors from the
International Atomic Energy Agency view its nuclear facilities, in spite of the fact that Washington has judged other
countries such as North Korea and Iran very harshly for a comparable offense. “The United States understands that Brazil
has no interest in a nuclear weapon, no desire and no plans, no programs, no intention of moving toward a nuclear
weapon,” were Powell’s conciliatory words in an interview with Brazilian television. In October, deep in the middle of
President Bush’s re-election campaign, Secretary of State Colin Powell made the time to visit Brazil, bringing with him
nothing but praise for its role in Haiti. “I take particular note of the tremendous work that is being performed by the
Brazilian contingent in Haiti…They stepped forward and are playing an important leadership role in the hemisphere and I
think what they did in Haiti demonstrates that,” Powell said. Critics see this amicability on the subject of Haiti as
proof of Lula’s complicity with Washington in a scheme to oust Aristide from power. Supporters of Lula maintain that he
is merely stepping forward to fulfill the mandate of the UN and maintain regional peace, a role that is not at all new
for Brazil, which has a long history of working with the UN on peacekeeping missions.
Ulterior Motive
Brazil, possessing the third largest country in the hemisphere in terms of land mass and the second largest in
population, has long had a significantly more diminutive position on the world stage than its geopolitical status would
merit. Lula seeks to bring his country to its rightful position as a world leader in both the Americas as well as
internationally. Brazil is now serving a two year term as a temporary member of the United Nation’s Security Council.
The five permanent members (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China) have been on the Council
since its inception in 1946. Regional powers such as Brazil, India and South Africa are in the process of soliciting the
expansion of the Council’s membership which would allow them to be awarded permanent seats based on their being the
leaders in regions of the world now significantly underrepresented.
It is very possible that Brazil’s involvement in Haiti is also an effort to project its capacity as an international
player and to demonstrate that it has the qualifications to serve as a permanent Security Council member. The nature of
the peacekeeping force that Brazil leads is in itself significant. Though it contains soldiers from countries as diverse
as Nepal, Benin and Croatia, the clear majority of the peacekeepers come from Latin America. Thus, Brazil is not only
showcasing itself as a international power, but perhaps even more importantly, as a country capable of leading and
representing Latin America. Lula’s strategy may be paying off: upon being asked on numerous occasions if the U.S would
support Brazil in its quest for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, Powell has said that, though the U.S. would
wait for the results of a panel of experts put together by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “I would certainly think
Brazil would be a solid candidate for such expanded membership.”
Lula’s greatest goal is not necessarily the salvation of Haiti, but the advancement of Brazil. In this project, he is
proving himself the consummate politician, willing to use and also serve the U.S. and the UN when they suit his
interests, and to dare6 to disregard them when they do not. Lula’s actions could result in architecting the early stages
of a new superpower, but only if he does not miscalculate the odds and therefore earn the skepticism of his own people,
the ire of the United States and the growing chagrin of tens of millions of Latin Americans who genuinely believe that
the Brazilian president is selling out Haiti for his own benefit.
This analysis was prepared by Anna Ioakimedes, COHA Research Associate.
December 6, 2004
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research
and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being “one of the nation’s most respected
bodies of scholars and policy makers.” For more information, please see our web page at www.coha.org; or contact our
Washington offices by phone (202) 223-4975, fax (202) 223-4979, or email coha@coha.org.